I'd like to put these up for discussion in two contexts:
1. The "guilt" question - How solid is the case for "climate debt" for
past emissions? Should this debt be repaid to innocent developing
countries suffering from "our" past and present emissions sins?
2. Clean technology development financing
It is often argued that developing countries will suffer most and have
contributed little to past emissions. We have benefited from past
emissions, they will suffer, so we should reimburse them.
This is quite a sensible argument. However, I think the positive
externalities are all too easily forgotten. If Europe and the US had
never burnt any coal, there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere, but
there would also be no vaccines, no mobile phones, no photovoltaics,
no modern wind turbines, no batteries.
The availability of these technologies is, has been and will continue
to be a huge boon to the development of poorer nations, all of which
have higher living standards today than a 100 years ago.
I would argue that huge transfers to developing countries are the
right thing to do, because so much more good can be done there than in
Europe or the US; not because of a need to atone for past sins.
---------------------------
Technology development can lead to huge external benefits. Sometimes,
via patents or through first mover advantages, the developer can be
fairly rewarded with the right incentives provided.
But, when it's hard to capture a reasonable share of the benefits,
private investors will not cough up any cash.
That's of course the reason for feed-in tariffs of 40 cents per kWh
for PV. It's also why no private investor will sink money into CO2
mineralisation technology. Or why it's so hard to get private money
for fighting malaria or improving African crop yields.
Now I like the CDM as conceived. It can be much cheaper to reduce
emissions in developing countries, and why not do that for 1 Euro per
tonne, and then not reduce in developed countries for 10 Euros per
tonne. It's development aid combined with cost reduction. In theory at
least.
I am wondering whether we should in a similar manner reward clean
technology development spending. Already with CDM there are questions
about additionality (would the country do it anyway? or worse would it
otherwise have speeded up regulatory action?) and measurement against
base line.
Of necessity, this is even harder for technology spending. Say, if
Germany or Spain choose to spend 10 billion Euros on feed-in tariffs,
how much is that going to reduce emissions over the long term in the
rest of the world?
I would propose to deal with this through a cost cap. Beyond a certain
level, say 25 Euros per tonne (reviewed every year), governments can
sell unlimited emissions allowances and use the proceeds for clean
technology funding. Alternatively, if there are no emissions allowance
markets and just hard caps for individual countries, the country could
be allowed to meet some of its target by counting clean development
spending at 25 Euros per tonne.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
